Japan's very low gun crime rate

[saddler]

The issue with the "gun ban" crowd is PURELY their hatred of guns. (Freud had an opinion on this type of individual)
Everything else is whitewash to hide their true agenda.

IF they ARE concerned about preventing premature deaths, they'd be best served campaining to ban alcohol/fags (both types)/diesel fuel/NHS staff wearing uniform away from the hospital/MRSA/abortion/using phones when driving/sugar rich drinks/sugar rich food/dairy products, etc.. etc.

The 1920 Firearms Act here was ONLY brought in because of Whitehall fears over Bolshevik revolution!

[Kungfugerbil]

The issue with the "gun ban" crowd is PURELY their hatred of guns.

I'm not sure about that. I love guns, and while I don't think the UK needs or could stand further restriction, my Utopia is most definitely not a universally-armed nation with concealed carry and castle doctrine.

I think there's a middle ground somewhere between Japan's system and Costco Ninjas wearing 'Don't tread on me' t shirts

[froggy]

I think there's a middle ground somewhere between Japan's system and Costco Ninjas wearing 'Don't tread on me' t shirts
+1
Whether it is dogs, cars, guns or loose women etc... only responsible idividuals should be allowed access. As far as the Gadsden flag, it is just out-right naf unless you are a born & bred proud US citizen ...

[saddler]

The issue with the "gun ban" crowd is PURELY their hatred of guns.

I'm not sure about that. I love guns, and while I don't think the UK needs or could stand further restriction, my Utopia is most definitely not a universally-armed nation with concealed carry and castle doctrine.

I think there's a middle ground somewhere between Japan's system and Costco Ninjas wearing 'Don't tread on me' t shirts

Yip. LOTS of middle grounds: Switzerland, Iceland, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, etc. etc.

...oh - if it's NOT about the guns - are the same "anti" crowd also as active in positive, contributory roles within their societies?
Never seen any examples of such philanthropy = just SJW type-rants & lack of conjoined thought.
To use your example of the USA = the hypocrisy is that the biggest meeja sound bite anti-gun crowd are the ones that either think the laws don't apply to them, or they hide behind several layers of armed security...

Whether it is dogs, cars, guns or loose women etc... only responsible individuals should be allowed access. As far as the Gadsden flag, it is just out-right naf unless you are a born & bred proud US citizen ...

I was about to point out that you'd raised the topic of flags ....but, tell me more about these loose women you mentioned. Are any of them attractive, or are they all French?

I agree that ONLY responsible people should have access = but not many irresponsible people adhere to the laws of the land in the first place.
Not the terrorists, bank robbers, inner city yoots, gangsta-rappers, etc.

Illegal AK's are so common in terror attacks there's calls to re-christen the AK the "Rifle of Peace"

[joe]

The issue with the "gun ban" crowd is PURELY their hatred of guns.

I'm not sure about that. I love guns, and while I don't think the UK needs or could stand further restriction, my Utopia is most definitely not a universally-armed nation with concealed carry and castle doctrine.

I think there's a middle ground somewhere between Japan's system and Costco Ninjas wearing 'Don't tread on me' t shirts

are you really telling us you against the self defence against an untruder in ones home ? that what castle doctrine is about ! before that, some states you had to retreat, castle doctrine, allows one to use a firearm to shoot someone in your home who is presenting a threat ! with law on the side of the home owner NOT the criminal

ccw works if it didnt then those 30 odd states would of banned it along ago and certainly wouldnt have been expended

[Kungfugerbil]

are you really telling us you against the self defence against an untruder in ones home ?

The theory is okay, but the implementation of Castle Doctrine (and more so Stand Your Ground law) is terrible. The UN have called for it to be rolled back as being inconsistent with the right to life.

I absolutely agree that if someone is breaking into your house and you believe there is an immediate threat to life then you should be able to protect yourself and family.

However cases where the homeowner has not been charged include fatally shooting an unarmed 13 year old running away a block away from your house or shooting dead a foreign student who knocked on the wrong door by mistake. Even when it's not your own property; you're protected even if you fatally shoot people you think are stealing from next door's house. In the back.

It's an emotive and divided topic. There's no right answer and Internet posts only reinforce each persons previously held views :)

[Chuck]

I'm not sure about that. I love guns, and while I don't think the UK needs or could stand further restriction, my Utopia is most definitely not a universally-armed nation with concealed carry and castle doctrine.

RIGHT TO LIFE....Is that of the victim or the criminal? And whose fault is that anywya? The UN argument is just idiotic - if the criminal had not started the process then he/she would not have been shot, simple really! If you don't want shot do not attack or threaten legally armed people! VICTIM LIVES MATTER!

However cases where the homeowner has not been charged include fatally shooting an unarmed 13 year old running away a block away from your house (cannot be justified and JUST WRONG unless you're a cop) or shooting dead a foreign student who knocked on the wrong door by mistake (just wrong again and as such the person reponsible deserves to be punished. Also the CONTEXT needs looked at, was it an area where crime by a certain community was rife?) ). Even when it's not your own property; you're protected even if you fatally shoot people you think are stealing from next door's house. THINK?????????? Well when you take the shot YOU ARE resposponsible In the back.That's tactics - it's how the military fight these days !

Seriously shooting someone in the back on the THOUGHT they may be doing something is wrong and probably will lead to court and possibly jail.

SO here we have some cherry picking incidents of bad judgement to justify an argument when the fact remains the good outweigh the bad. That's like using drunk driving as an excuse to ban cars and / or alcohol. If people do not want to defend themselves that's fine, BUT, everone should have a CHOICE! Whatever, one thing sticks out in all of this..LACK of training. As I've said a hundered times before, a silly $60 CCW class is just a safety class, nothing more. It certainly does NOT in any way prepare you for an armed encounter.

Joe:

are you really telling us you against the self defence against an untruder in ones home ? that what castle doctrine is about ! before that, some states you had to retreat, castle doctrine, allows one to use a firearm to shoot someone in your home who is presenting a threat ! with law on the side of the home owner NOT the criminal

ccw works if it didnt then those 30 odd states would of banned it along ago and certainly wouldnt have been expended

clapclap clapclap

[saddler]

Want a cherry picked bad idea?
The not for much longer current VICE-President = his suggestion is to shoot through a closed front door at possible intruders, with a double barrel shotgun!

Joe Biden must be one of the strangest people on the plante currently drawing breath.
A real Jimmy Saville type, though the former hid what he's up to. Biden sniffs & strokes women & under-age girls in full view of the world media.
(Check YouTube for some very creepy footage)

[Kungfugerbil]

..and yet Chuck, those three cases are actual cases where the shooter was not charged. There was no concept of 'fearing for life' - the threat was gone, directed elsewhere or never there in the first place.

The kids in the first case were rummaging through a car in an alley that the owner had left open and unlocked. Martinez Smith-Payne, Missouri.

The second case was a Japanese student who had been invited to a Halloween party and simply knocked on the door of the wrong house by mistake. Yoshihiro Hattori, Louisiana.

The third case was a Texan who saw some people peering in the windows of his neighbours property. He phoned police and told them he was going to kill the burglars. The dispatcher gave very clear instructions not to do so and to stay in his home, but he ignored them, went out and shot them both fatally in the back as they were leaving with a shotgun. Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus, Texas.

No charges were laid in any case.

I'm not saying these people were saints - the latter pair were illegal immigrants who did take some property from the neighbour - but that is stretching the definition of defence of life.

Hattori did absolutely nothing wrong in any way, shape or form.

The kids 11,13 and 14 years old) shouldn't have gone through someone elses belongings, but an unlocked, illuminated car in an alley is going to tempt most curious kids to take a look.

There are correct and appropriate examples of the law of course, but it's a blunt tool applied incorrectly.

[saddler]

...The kids 11,13 and 14 years old) shouldn't have gone through someone elses belongings, but an unlocked, illuminated car in an alley is going to tempt most curious kids to take a look...

When I was that age we did all of our "look" themed activities with our eyes, not our fingers!
Involve hands & sticky fingers and that's changed from looking to doing...